This discussion seems to be missing the point.
EITHER the EPA deliberately exposed people to substances they knew to be dangers, just to see what would happen (not unlike the pioneering experiments of Josef Mengelé),
OR the EPA has been deliberately lying to Congress and the world about the dangers of inhaling PM2.5 or diesel exhaust.
Either way, the EPA cannot be trusted, and responsible decision-makers among the EPA and their UNC enablers and co-conspirators and accomplices should be imprisoned for crimes against humanity.
Whether they are crimes of criminal negligence or criminal harm to the participants in these studies is irrelevant.

Touche, but diesel exhaust has a high level of concentration of compounds with an already low effects level. Carbon Monoxide if nothing else. As I mentioned on a prior thread, if the EPA’s air blower failed, this would be equivalent to a popular method of suicide.

I prefer it to be the proof that the EPA is full of it with their emission standards. It proves that in reality they don’t believe themselves it’s actually as harmful as they say. If that were the case they’d never ever have done the experiments. According to their official standpoint, it’s so lethal it’s like testing people with asbestos to see if they get lung cancer

Sure, the dose counts. If you drink a couple of liters of distilled water your brain explodes, but that is beyond a rare occurrence.
Same for getting actually ill from fumes. You need some really serious long term inhalation of fumes to get sick. Also a rare occurrence.

To quote my “esteemed” opponent, it is the dose. Avoid high concentrations, as found behind large Diesel vehicles. When the black cloud dissipates, the dose goes down, and risk goes down. Not to zero, but to a much lower level. Cancer occurs to humans in all environments, and has many natural causes. It has some artificial ones too, including PAH’s as has been well documented.
The story here is not whether uncatalyzed Diesels should or should not be banned. Arguably after years of recommending the proper respiratory protection equipment for thousands of different environments I am not pleased about Diesel smoke up close and personal. Regardless, it is not safe, and the EPA voluntarily exposing subjects to it is sense-free. Leukemia is no laughing matter.

I only know one thing, uncatalyzed diesels have been common in european cars since 40 years or more. Hardly any regulation until recently.
IF diesel fumes are of that high toxicity levels as claimed large clusters of diesel fume related diseases would have been visible in Europe by now.
Admittedly i didn’t do a full out study but a superficial glance at health statistics of major European nations don’t show this to be the case.

The biggest drop in inhalation linked diseases was cigarette smoking which clearly shows up as a signal. For the rest not much.

And one more thing, even though this poster largely agreed with me, just so the truth is in front of all of us: Black Lung is caused by the quartz fraction in coal dust, not soot. The carbon dust is not respirable, goes down and comes right back up one way or the other. Silica, now, you don’t want to breathe much of that, as in quartz….

Once and for all, was this catalyzed Diesel exhaust or not? Some slow readers on here. Most Diesel engines are not protected by catalytic converters, put out clouds of toxic smoke. Anyone who would say they don’t has not looked it up.

‘It’s all about the dose.” Benzene gives people Leukemia. Once you get it, you got it. How was any of this a rant? Who would defend Diesels? I did not make one controversial statement. “No enormous cluster of lung afflictions.” Just how big was it? Diesel is in all cities, more in some than others. In ShenZhen some days you cannot see to the end of the block. The dose when you follow a large vehicle, particularly one with a street-level tail pipe, can be substantial. If EPA exposed subjects to uncatalyzed Diesel exhaust they are idiots, and I will happily testify against them.

“The health of effects of HAPs are well known and not in controversy.”

That is a very debatable statement. Especially now that health physics LNT dose-response models are in question.

“What the EPA is trying to do is claim health effects on a very low level of exposure, which IS controversial.”

This is precisely my point to Mr. Moon’s rant.

“When you see a big truck spew a cloud of black soot, just run away, do not breathe it, whether your name is Will Robinson or not. And whether you cook on a wood stove or not. Goodness, nothing toxic is ever in the air???”

Stoves running browncoal AND uncatalysed ancient russian diesels and uncatalysed ancient merc’s etc in a town with very narrow streets.

Not to speak of the badly tuned russian petrol vehicles.
Reality and theory meet. No enormous cluster of lung afflictions in the Praque area. Theory falsified, human is more resilient then assumed in the theories.

Careful, my friend, let’s not go overboard. This isn’t about global warming, or other standard topics on this site which are significantly oversold. This is something concrete and well researched. The health of effects of HAPs are well known and not in controversy. Similarly, excessive soot particulate is known to manifest as black lung, particularly in chain smokers and coal miners. That’s also non-controversial. What the EPA is trying to do is claim health effects on a very low level of exposure, which IS controversial.

Please also read Mike’s ending comment. He wants to ban uncatalyzed diesels, not trucks, trains, or boats with proper emissions controls. Also, Mikey, you should know that diesels without emissions controls are effectively banned in the vast majority of circumstances and actions.

Fume is a solid particulate typically generated by welding, usually metallic. “Fumes” usually aren’t fumes at all, but vapors. I did specify that new Clean Diesels are much safer. When you see a big truck spew a cloud of black soot, just run away, do not breathe it, whether your name is Will Robinson or not. And whether you cook on a wood stove or not. Goodness, nothing toxic is ever in the air???

Yeah right. I lived in Praque which had at that time the worst fumes ever. In winter time it got so bad, what with all the stoves burning, that the air actually scorched your lungs and made your eyes water.

Still lot’s of very lively people there with no special lung disease clusters.
Theory and reality. And what some weirdo american jury awarded means zilch except a distinct lack of reason.

You seriously doubt it? Try sucking on the exhaust pipe of a city bus, see how long you last. The largest judgment for wrongful death ever was $100 million against Monsanto, Chocolate Bayou plant, for benzene exposure. Diesel exhaust is full of benzene. Diesels should be banned, except for stationary applications, without the catalytic converters that make the new Clean Diesels so great.

Thank you mr Milloy, for exposing this. Whilst i seriously doubt any real harm comes from inhaling air mixed with diesel fumes even for extended periods I do see how this goes a long way to shake the EPA’s trustworthiness as an agency an can help to derail the de-carbonization drive which is economical suicide.
I wish you much success but sadly the image of Don Quichote comes to mind nonetheless.

Why would anyone knowingly willingly be exposed to Diesel exhaust? I hold my breath when I am behind a Diesel, as should everyone. The uncatalyzed exhaust is more than 1000 times more toxic than gasoline exhaust. Whose brilliant idea was this? The toxicology of PMA’s is well-documented. Rather hard to believe that any human-subjects-research approval board would have OK’d this. My sister is on one at Johns-Hopkins, maybe she could help look into it.

What horrible reporting. PM2.5 is EPA shorthand for Particulate Matter, 2.5 micron and below. Diesel exhaust has thousands of hideously toxic compounds including benzene and many other polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Which was it, dust or Diesel? If EPA used Dieselexhaust, they should be prosecuted, and I would happily testify against them, with my background in respiratory protection.